From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Oct 13 07:25:46 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F79816A41F
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:25:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jere@htnet.hr)
Received: from ls405.htnet.hr (ls405.htnet.hr [195.29.150.97])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A2643D46
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:25:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jere@htnet.hr)
Received: from ls401.t-com.hr (ls401.t-com.hr [195.29.150.236])
	by ls405.htnet.hr (0.0.0/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j9D7PfWl028394;
	Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:25:41 +0200
Received: from ls401.t-com.hr (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by ls401.t-com.hr (Qmlai) with ESMTP id AAA8070003;
	Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:25:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-Envelope-Sender: jere@htnet.hr
X-Envelope-Sender: jere@htnet.hr
X-Envelope-Sender: jere@htnet.hr
Received: from [195.29.148.251] (bla.htnet.hr [195.29.148.251])
	by ls401.t-com.hr (Qmlai) with ESMTP id 60980A802D;
	Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:25:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <434E0C7C.5060408@htnet.hr>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:27:56 +0200
From: jere <jere@htnet.hr>
Organization: bla
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050428)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr>
References: <200510111202.j9BC2obf081876@freefall.freebsd.org>	<434CBDC2.407	0405@open-networks.net><434CE0F1.6090400@htnet.hr><20051012134440.GA17517@d	roopy.unibe.ch>
	<434D1A21.9040104@fer.hr>
In-Reply-To: <434D1A21.9040104@fer.hr>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:24:20 +0000
Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, Tobias Roth <roth@iam.unibe.ch>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-05:21.openssl
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:25:46 -0000

I agree with that. What enterprise environment wants is quick patching 
and a quick rollback (in case of failure). Nobody asks you how good is 
or how much you like your OS - system just has to work - that's all. 
FreeBSD itself *is* very robust OS but not having this properties it is 
still limited to be widely accepted in large production environments.

j.

Ivan Voras wrote:
> Tobias Roth wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:09:53PM +0200, jere wrote:
> 
>> And you cannot expect the port maintainers
>> to backport security fixes if the upstream provider chose to release the
>> fix only together with a new version.
> 
> Yes you can, ask these guys: http://www.debian.org/. It's just a matter 
> of policy.
> 
> I dislike the long cycles between version updates in Debian but must 
> admit that the "stable" distributions indeed justify their name, 
> INCLUDING packages.
>